July 10, 2007
Faysal Ruwahya’s Letter No. 9 [A series of letters sent to members of the U.S. Senate]
Senator
The 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah in July 2006 motivated me to write you 8 letters about our policy in the Middle East. Some of you were courteous and sent a response.
A number of the Senators justified our total blind support of Israeli policies, at the expense of United States geopolitical interest in the oil-rich region. These senators do not mind providing billions of taxpayer monies to assure the Jewish state the military "superpower" status in the Middle East. This was not news to me because various Democratic and Republican administrations preach that Israel would serve American interests. For pro-Israel organizations, especially during election times have been very generous in providing money and votes to American presidential candidates and members of Congress as long as they meet one criterion. Serving Israel’s political, economic and military interest. In return the various administrations and members of Congress do not hesitate spending American taxpayers money to ensure Israel is one of the most powerful military forces in the world.
During the Reagan Administration, two Jewish lawyers working for the government, Max Kampelman and Richard Schifter, were assigned (1983) the tedious task of preparing the legal work for founding the American-Israeli Strategic Agreement, a pet idea of the pro-Israel administration. In the course of their work they came in contact with members of Congress. Kampelman remarked, "I was struck by the intensity of rhetorical support of Israel by some members of Congress, particularly some Jewish members who then voted against domestic defense budget items with equal intensity. They were hawks in the Middle East and doves back home - or at least, an infertile hybrid."
One of the letters from a senator struck me most, however. In his long letter dated March 6, 2007, he repeated the word democracy three times in four lines.
Allow me to quote those lines, "I have always been a strong supporter of Israel and continue to believe that the [financial, military and political] assistance we provide is money well-spent. Israel is a valuable democratic ally in a strategically vital region of the world [translate into cheap oil] not known for its stability or democratic principles. We act in our own self-interest when we offer support for Israeli democracy." [Emphasize added] His statement did not surprise me at all.
Senator,
The American politicians’ praise of Israel is well known in the European circles, less prone to pro-Israel lobby political pressures, and Arab world. They are aware that in ALL of the United States Gubernational and presidential elections, the candidates especially those running for Congressional elections tend to lavish all kinds of praises on Israel. Every one of them salutes Israel. They use very flattery language in describing Israeli accomplishments. The Jewish State is described as "our staunch ally," a "bastion of democracy," a "strategic ally", a "state beleaguered by terrorism, and other praises that does not reflect the realities in the Jewish State. For example, the presidential candidates tend to ignore Israeli brutalities against Palestinians and Arabs, the creeping annexation policies, and they show what each has "done for Israel" instead. These politicians seeking the highest post of the land, want to gain American Jewry votes and financial support, at the expense of Palestinian people, which like all other people of the world, is entitled to its own state to live in an independent viable state.
The facts below speak to themselves as to whether I give much more credit to the pro-Israel lobbies than they deserve in determining the Gubernational candidate’s attitude toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
American author Jonathan Goldberg justifies the clout that American Jewry has in gubernational elections. He pointed out that, "71 percent of all American Jews live in just seven states, where they constitute at least 3 percent of the population [and 6 percent or more of the electorate]: New York, New Jersey, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut and California. Adding Pennsylvania and Illinois, where Jews number 2.7 percent and 2.3 percent of the population, respectively, fully 81 percent of all American Jews live in just nine state."
He then demonstrates the strength of the Jewish vote that contributes to the winning or losing a presidential election such as the won that took place in 1992. He points out that Bill Clinton won and beat Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush and independent candidate Ross Perot with a "43 to 38 to 19 percent breakdown of the 101 million votes cast. Goldberg discloses that among Jewish voters the results were different. American Jewish Congress' Election Day exit polls revealed that Jews voted 85 percent for Clinton, 10 percent for Bush, and 5 percent for Perot. These election realities did not escape the Democratic National Committee's attention that stressed after Election Day that it was Jewish votes for Clinton that had made up between 50 and 56 percent of the 5.5 million-vote victory margin. This was not an exaggeration since about 1.5 million of the 5.5 million voters who secured Clinton's victory was his strong appeal to Jewish voters. Hence every major presidential candidate when campaigning does take into consideration that Jewish votes makes a difference on whether he wins or loses in securing the Presidency.
Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition, pointed out about the strength of the Jewish vote. He remarked that decisions in a democracy are not always made according to the beliefs of the majority. He stressed that more often decisions are made according to who pushes hardest. He rightly stated, "Politics is a matter of intensity." Reed was alluding to the 6.2 million American Jews living among about 300 million others carry considerable weight because three fourths of the public rarely votes.
The subject of "Democracy in Israel" is rarely discussed in our media. For this reason, I shall attempt to address it in threeo parts. This will allow you, or your senior staff to digest/reflect the bitter realities raised by non-Arab sources; some are Israeli liberals, others disillusioned American/British Jews who were inculcated with the high ideals of Zionism, and the third source are Western observers that lament the lack of true Western Democracy in the Jewish State. To a great degree, I have avoided Arab sources because Israel supporters in the hall of our Congress would construe it as mere Arab propaganda
Senator,
Allow me to share with you the definition of democracy, theocracy and which form applies to Israel’s policies, especially towards its second-class citizens, namely the Israeli Arabs and Jews that do not belong to the Orthodox community. I also will share with you the events that took place in Israel to demonstrate that the "oasis of democracy" in the Middle East is totally different than our great democracy.
In the dictionary definition, democracy "is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." Our President Abraham Lincoln rightly noted that democracy is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Historians added that democracy, among other matters, it also consists of a set of practices and procedures.
Lebanese historian Bassam Jisr noted, "Democracy is not only about holding elections, the separation of powers and respecting human rights. It is a state of mind, a culture that also includes transparency, respect of minority rights, and equality of opportunities. Israel’s democracy is no democracy in the real meaning of the word, that the army and espionage services [Shin Bet, Mossad] play a large part in the national life, and that rightwing religious zealots have a disproportionate role."
A large number of our fellow citizens believe that Israel is a shinning democratic state nestled among the Arab dictatorships in the volatile region. This outlook is partially correct according to a European familiar with the Middle East. He remarked, "Israeli democracy can be praised like Athenian democracy. Athens had a great democracy, if you ignore the slaves. Israel has a great democracy if you pay no attention to the Arabs and their plight." It is very true that among the Israeli public, there is strong support for democratic values. However, this support has some clearly identifiable soft spots, as I will point them out to you.
Senator,
The first of these soft spots regards Israeli public allowing the military to dictate the State policy when dealing with the Palestinians and Arab neighbors because of security fears. In a democratic state such as ours, even after the terrible terrorist attack of September 11, the civilians were in total control of the military on how to address the security fears of our great nation. However, in Israel, the public there is inclined to accept to diminish the democratic practices when faced with real or imaginary threat to national security.
The second soft spot is the sharp curtailment of freedom of the press, which is a given in any democratic state, to avoid revealing of security related sensitive information.
The third soft spot is the well-known discriminatory policies that curtail minority rights. In fact the treatment of Israeli Arabs and even Oriental Jews diminish the democratic principle of equality before the law. This, in my view, is the "Achilles heel" of Israeli democracy. I will dwell on these three soft spots later on
Following the 1967 War, the vigorous debate between rightwing and open-minded Israelis over the future of the Occupied Territories also increased the threat on Israel being a truly democratic country.
The decisive Israeli military victory emboldened Jewish radicalism in the country and in the process diminished the principle of democracy. For example, Gush Emunim [Bloc of the Faithful] became the vanguard in annexing large tracts of captured Arab lands by paramilitary rule. All the Israeli cabinets that followed the 1967 War adopted this undemocratic process. In the absence of democratic practices and laws that would have protected the people under occupation, resulted in the injection of new sources of tension and conflict. Every successive rightwing government, based on the demagoguery of the extremists’ right, dictated government policies and seemed to threaten the very basis of democratic rule. Moreover, Israel’s lack of a constitution enabled the Jewish State to embark on massive expropriation of Palestinian Arab lands of those that fled the country or even remained behind in Israel, right after the 1948 War. They were carried out through undemocratic numerous laws the Israeli government enacted to legalize the confiscation of large tracts of land for implementing its "creeping annexation" policy. The presence of a Western-based democratic constitution would have protected the rights and provided the legal means to Palestinian land owners to force the state to treat all its citizens equally as well as fight all the laws passed to legalize the expropriation acts.
The Israeli political establishment appetite to establish many settlements in the captured Arab land became the main thrust of each Israeli cabinet. This was carried out in an unabated fashion at the expense of democratic rule and laws. The extremist groups presented an intellectual challenge to democratic ideals championed by secular Israelis that abhorred the terrible and undemocratic acts waged by some nationalistic and religious circles, which I will explain at a later stage. The radical Israelis were successful in ignoring the fact that although Israel was a Jewish State; it must also adhere to democracy in Israel. Instead the extremists decided to preserve the Jewishness characteristics as the first priority even in the occupied lands. They did not hesitate, with the encouragement of the Labor and Likud governments, from curtailing many Arab rights and thus distanced Israel from its democratic pluralism practices that theoretically was supposed to provide equality to all the peoples under its control. Instead the Israeli governments ignored democratic rule even within the pre-1967 borders when dealing with its Arab citizens that have accepted the Jewishness of their state and their duties as citizens. The Israeli Arabs like the Palestinians experienced political suppression without apology. All of this adds up to a rather dismal view of Israeli democracy, or at least of trends that threaten to undermine it. The rightwing policies have eroded democratic values to none Jews and even non-Orthodox Jews. .
It is true that in a democratic state, like ours, political decisions are made by majority rule. However, it is also true that in our democratic rule, whatever decisions are taken they also protects individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities. All the minorities in America have the same rights and obligations toward the state and most importantly feel safe because our democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens, irrespective of ones religion, color, ethnicity and gender. This is why I strongly believe that our form of government is indeed a constitutional democracy. In our form of democracy there are a myriad of opportunities for those belonging to the minorities of our society to participate in a meaningful manner in government, labor unions, etc. This pluralism is our lifeline that distinguishes our great country from other nations that do not practice democratic rule. The majority as well as minorities in our society has their own organizations, free of government control; that lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions.
On this subject, British Israeli author Susan Nathan remarked, "Israeli Arabs still face considerable discrimination, mainly because Israel lacks a constitution codifying basic rights, such as equality, freedom of speech and religious freedom, and because important national group rights which determine resource allocations, are only recognized for Jewish citizens." I will dwell on these bitter realities later on.
Senator
I would ask you to keep in mind a historian rule’s eleven pillars of democracy, when reviewing the "democratic" practices of Israel. The eleven pillars range from: "Sovereignty of the people; Government based upon consent of the governed; Majority rule; Minority rights; Guarantee of basic human rights; Free and fair elections; Equality before the law; Due process of law; Constitutional limits on government; Social, economic, and political pluralism; and Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, to compromise" Sadly five of these pillars are absent in Israel’s democratic practices because the State is based on theocratic-ethnic-democratic principles. Democracy in Israel is dictated by the Orthodox religious community policies that places the Halacha teachings above democratic principles. It is ethnic democracy because non-Orthodox Jews, like Israeli Arabs, are discriminated against.
Senator,
The British born Princeton University scholar Bernard Lewis, a Zionist and strong supporter of Israel pointed out that Saudi Arabia and Israel had one thing in common. He provided a vivid picture about the common factors in Israel and Saudi Arabia, " Of the states without written constitutions, principally Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, both accords a very considerable place to religion in the definition of identity and loyalty. If one may briefly compare the two, Saudi Arabia gives a greater place to the application of religious law, Israel allows a far greater political role to the [Orthodox] clergy." Hence neither countries have a separation of Church and State, like in the United States.
It would be worth at this juncture to ask whether Israel has a real democracy? Is Israel both Jewish and democratic? I believe the repeated claim that Israel is a Jewish State is a clear indication that Jewishness is antithetical to democracy. The bitter reality is that to the extent that Israel insists of being solely a Jewish State, it cannot then claim to be a democratic state. The theocratic foundation of Israel, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, essentially equates "Jewish" with the Semitic race as well as to the Jewish religion. Historians of democratic studies would no doubt label such racial criteria as an exclusivist State because it is based on religious principles and thus would by definition be theocratic. Let me hasten and note that the ruling Ashkenazi establishment in Israel has succeeded in demonstrating that although Israel is a "Jewish" polity, it operates largely by secular rather than religious laws. The below facts would demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that this is partially true on a number of policy issues. However, major policy issues in Israel are still influenced by Orthodox religious community. Thus, in my view, Israel’s democracy is a blend of western democratic norms mixed with heavy doses of theocratic laws. This is vividly stated by Benyamin Neuberger, "Israel’s political tradition is a mix of democratic and nondemocratic traditions because its major components such as the Jewish religion and the Judaic historical traditions, but also the modern ideologies of socialism and nationalism, contain both liberal-democratic and authoritarian elements."
The reality in Israel is obvious to neutral observers. Israel being a Jewish State has created some tension with the demands of democracy. The dominance of the religious Orthodox leaders has imposed its will on the State laws that dictates of God-given law must always take precedence over man-made rules and institutions.
Senator,
It would be a valid question to ask whether a Jewish State with mainly a large Jewish population that observe Jewish religious laws does not deny Secular Jews and non-Jewish citizens of its rights as Israeli citizens? If it does not then I would agree that the Jewishness of a state that provides equal rights and opportunities to all its citizens is truly a democratic state indeed. However, if the state laws provide laws and practices that benefit a segment of the population, then it would be worth asking if it still can label itself a democratic state. For in democracy the dominant groups that enact the laws and practices of a democratic state also ensure that they extend it to citizens from other ethnic groups. Which of the European democracies, for instance, has enacted laws and follow practices that reflect its people’s own history, traditions and way of life thus impinging on its ethnic population rights? Finally is the democracy in Israel similar to the progressive European model? The answer to these questions need to be based on the realities on the ground and not mere political statements to ingratiate ones self to lobby pressures.
The candid reply to these questions would enable a neutral observer to judge the Israeli democratic system. Israel as well as other Western democratic nations should be judged by the same standard that differentiates them from dictatorships and theocratic rule. Those claiming that Israel’s democracy is similar to ours should not overlook the enacted laws and practices that discriminate segments of its citizens. These supporters should not overlook these facts simply because Israel’s unique historical experience of Jews, the terrible Holocaust history, provide the excuse for Israel to be judged more leniently.
Those that preach about Israel being a "democratic oasis" should have the intestinal fortitude to evaluate democratic attitudes in Israel with Western democracies. They should not overlook the fact that Israel is to be judged as other countries are judged. This comparative perspective becomes necessary, especially "when dealing with such problems as minority rights in a conflict situation, security pressures on civil liberties, the role of religion in politics, and overwhelming pressures on available resources can be fully evaluated only by comparing the Israeli case to others, similar and dissimilar." according to a European analyst.
I am well aware that no country in the world can claim to have attained a true universalism in its politics. That is a society provides practices that are truly neutral toward all citizens, with blindness toward all ethnic, religious, cultural, linguistic, and other attributes. The democratic states indeed reflect the human reality with all its frailties and are influenced to a great degree by particular traditions and ingrained social norms or behaviors.
An Israeli analyst lamented, "The annual Freedom House series ranks Israel among the ‘free’ nations while also putting it on the second rung regarding political rights, as a nation with a functioning electoral system but ‘particular problems.’" The analyst was alluding that one of the weaker aspects of Israeli democracy is minority right.
Senator,
I will share with you my views about Israel’s democracy by using three criteria namely pluralism in Israeli society, practices and procedures enacted by the State, and degree of protection these laws provide individual human rights. This approach necessitates a review of the State [Knesset] Laws, religious influence in enacting State laws or practices, Military influence in determining foreign policies, and radical parties’ influence in determining government addressing domestic and foreign matters
It is a valid question to ask whether the Israeli society believe in pluralism since many rightwing parties, believe in the "Greater Israel" concept, want to transfer [euphemism for ethnic cleansing] Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories to neighboring Arab states.
Most of the American public as well as American politicians believe that the Jewish State has a democratic pluralism as practiced in the United States. The Americans fail to note, in their praise of Israeli democracy, that the belief of one man, one vote and equal treatment under the law does not suit Israel when it comes to Palestinian Arabs. For instance, the hard-liners that want to annex the West Bank and fail to give much thought that such a move would no longer keep Israel a Jewish State. If the hundred of thousands of Palestinians living on the West Bank are incorporated into the Israeli population and given the right to vote for the Knesset, it is conceivable that they might vote out the Jews and attempt to end Israel as a Zionist and Jewish entity. In order to maintain the Jewish concept, which runs very much against democratic principles, is to deny these Palestinian Arabs any right to vote and thus establish an Athenian-style democracy where the elite, Jews, is united by common religion, social values and political aims would rule the lower caste, Arabs. Thus it is very conceivable that the Palestinian population residing in Greater Israel will one day outnumber the Jews and thus would be in a position to elect their own representatives to govern the entire nation. Of course this will never happen but it is important for the hard-liners to contemplate when they keep asking for the annexation of the West Bank. Israeli occupation of additional Palestinian land had created a big dilemma to the government, which never had to tackle with prior to the defeat of the Arabs in 1967. The Israeli dilemma is how to keep the democracy veneer while denying the majority of Palestinian Arabs to govern the country. This would never occur because it runs against Israel’s raison d’être as solely a Jewish State.
Nasser Aruri, a Palestinian American scholar, remarked about the Israeli dilemma. He pointed out, "the ideal of Zionism in Israel is racial and exclusionist...... the very concept of a Jewish state precludes the notion of pluralism and coexistence," and asserted, "the rise of Palestinian resistance was the single most important factor that exposed Israel as a colonial oppressor, its enterprises are based on legal discrimination between Jews and non-Jews."
Senator,
The best way to analyze Israel’s democracy is to simply raise three questions. The first question regards the compatibility between the claim that Israel is a Jewish State and its treatment of non-Jewish citizens. This points out to the difficulty of accepting the democratic spirit with the exclusivity of the state being solely as a Jewish State rather than a state for the Israelis. This exclusivity blemished further the aspects of democracy since the majority of the Jews are not Israelis and a considerable number of Israelis are not Jewish. The second question that need to be addressed should deal with the practical and not theoretical implications of a Jewish democracy by asking whether the rights of non-Jews are equal to those of Jews in Israel. The third inquiry should look into the unique relationship between the Jewish State and non-Israeli Jews because it raises the problematic aspects of Israeli democracy since it involves a considerable measure of extraterritoriality. In addition, Israel’s unique relationship to non-Israeli Jews establishes a legal bond that exceeds the Jewish State’s relationship with its own non-Jewish citizens. To address these three questions, one has to examine the three discriminatory fundamental laws of the country.
The Law of Return, one of the fundamental laws established in 1950, provided automatic citizenship to every Jew, irrespective of his nationality or wherever he was born or wherever he lived, without any formal procedures. Hence Jews have inalienable right to immigrate to Israel and they were the only people that could take full advantage of the Law of Return. This law excluded Palestinians, simply because they were not Jewish. The leadership in Israel regards Palestinian Arabs residing in the state, as "Arab nationals" whereas the Jews living in the country possess "Jewish nationality" and are entitled to special rights that non-Jews do not enjoy them. This dichotomy between Israeli "citizenship" and Israeli "nationality" is difficult to comprehend by those that do not live in Israel. This is because the special privileges that accompany Jewish nationality are unique and no other country in the world has such discriminatory status. The Law of Return indicates that non-Jewish Israeli has basically less right than Jewish Israelis. An impartial observer would conclude that the inequity between Jews and non-Jews is, by all measures, antidemocratic. This dichotomy is not noticeable by outsiders when examining the actual terms of Israeli laws. However, they are evident when an in depth analysis is made of the meaning or implications of "Jewish State" for non-Jewish citizens living in the Jewish State. It is worth mentioning that although there is no entry for "nationality" in Israel, the citizens indicate their nationality as "Jew" or "Arab". However, under the entry of citizenship, both Jews and non-Jews can indicate "Israeli," thus reaffirming the Israeli laws of separation between nationality and citizenship.
The lack of a constitution in Israel makes it very difficult for Israeli Arabs to challenge the definition of their state as Jewish. If there were a democratic constitution in place, like those present in Western democracies, would have enabled non-Jewish citizens of Israel to challenge this extra territorial obligations in the Supreme Court and demand that the state ceased giving preferential treatment or rights to an ethnic group whose members are not Israeli citizens and at the expense of its own non-Jewish citizens. Furthermore, the non-Jewish citizens can possibly demand from the Supreme Court to declare the status of the Jewish Agency, for instance, as unconstitutional since it serves the interests of only one group of citizens [Israeli Jews]. They could also raise numerous challenges against tens of laws that were enacted by the government to favor Jews [such as housing grants to ex-servicemen, when Arabs are mainly excluded from military service] and oblige Israeli courts to declare them unconstitutional.
The Law of return is very unique in the world, especially in democratic countries, because it privilege, "those who have never lived on its soil, but not for many who once did; and even the hundreds of thousands of non-Jews who live as Israeli citizens do not enjoy the full rights of citizenship taken for granted in most Western countries….. Few American or British Jews stopped to ask themselves how they might feel if their own countries were determined by ‘Americanness’ or ‘Englishness,’ while those qualities were themselves adjudged by monsignors or archdeacons," lamented Geoffrey Wheatcroft
The very unique Law of Return is based on the following Zionism tenets: a- All Jews in the world are one nation; b- Israel is a Jewish State, created by the Jews and for the Jews all over the world. c- The Jewish dispersal is a temporary situation and sooner or later all Jews have to come [home] to Israel.; and d- The ingathering of these exiles is the raison d’être of Israel.
The Law of Return states, "any Jew has the right to make Aliyah to the state." It was amended (1970) to allow the Right of Return not only to "pure" Jews but also to non-Jewish spouses and offspring of Jewish immigrants. American Jews continue to criticize the law, however, because it does not recognize as Jews those who have been converted to Judaism by Reform or Conservative Rabbis. Furthermore, Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar pressured the authorities (2007) to amend the Law of Return so that converts to all three principal streams of Judaism - Reform, Conservative and Orthodox - would be refused automatic Israel citizenship. According to the Jerusalem Post, the rabbi, "Hopes that by eliminating Israeli citizenship as an incentive to conversion, he will maintain Orthodoxy's monopoly. If the Knesset approved Amar’s proposal, only Jews born to a Jewish mother or, alternatively, relatives of Jews currently covered by the Law of Return, would be entitled to automatic citizenship. The chief rabbi also proposes anchoring in law the jurisdiction of special Orthodox rabbinic conversion courts over conversions performed in Israel."
The most startling remark about the Law of Return was made by former Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg when interviewed in June 2007 by the Ha’aretz Weekend Magazine. Burg the former head of the Jewish Agency lamented, "to define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end. A Jewish state is explosive. It's dynamite." In other words, Burg renounced Zionism when he demanded to abolish the definition of Israel as a Jewish State.
Senator,
In December 1999, Zehava Galon, a Knesset member who belonged to the Meretz Party, remarked about the discriminatory "Law of Return", "It discriminates between Jews and non-Jews. I can accept that after the Holocaust, it was kind of a necessity. But maybe after 51 years, we are not in the same situation, and we don’t need to run our country based on such undemocratic laws."
Ehud Barak, however, was opposed to discuss or even amend the "Law of Return" during his term. Western readers are unaware of the negative implications of these laws on Israeli Arabs [i.e.Christians and Muslims], who supposedly should be treated equally with their Jewish compatriots.
An Israeli Arab Knesset member, Mohammed Baraka, submitted a bill that proposed that the Parliament enacted a law that Israel is a democratic and multicultural state.
Uri Avnery echoed Baraka’s remark about the blemished democracy in his country, "What is a "Jewish state"? That was never made clear. A state whose citizens are all Jewish? A State that belongs to Jews only? The ‘state of the Jewish people’, which also belongs to millions of Jews who do not live here and are citizens of the US, Argentina and France? A state ruled by the Jewish religion? A state that expresses Jewish values (and if so, which ones?)…. The term "Jewish State" is nebulous. It can be interpreted in several ways. When one adds the word "democratic", it becomes an oxymoron - if a state belongs only to a part of its population it is not democratic, and if it is democratic then it cannot belong to a part of its population, even if they compose the majority."
He like all Israeli Arabs demanded, "The relationship between a modern state and its citizens must be based on one consideration only: citizenship. The state belongs to all its citizens, and all of them must be equal before the law. That is what the 1948 Declaration of Independence promised: ‘The State of Israel… will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.’ "
On one occasion, Palestinian Professor Said Zidane of Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem and a left-wing law professor, Ruth Gavison, clashed when the two participated on a panel at Tel Aviv University. The Palestinian addressed the Israeli professor, "OK, I am a liberal democrat and you proclaim yourself a liberal democrat. All I want is that both of us should be equal citizens within one state."
Said went on to state, "She agreed at the theoretical level, but then told me I had to appreciate the improvement in my situation over the past twenty or thirty years and said that steps to end discrimination would have to be gradual. She and other Israelis are not ready for anything more than this, because it would mean the end of Zionism. If we had liberal democracy in Israel, that would mean the end of Jewish nationalism. Israel doesn’t even want to change the personal-status laws [on marriage and conversion], because it worries that it would lead to assimilation of Jews."
All these comments are forcing Israel’s Establishment to debate the issue of whether Israel is solely a Jewish State.
More recently a liberal American Reformist wrote about this discriminatory Law of Return, " So far Israel has managed to convince the Western world that it is the only democracy in the region, but neglects to add that this democracy works only for its Jewish citizens. This is the conundrum: Israel has been unable to reconcile what it says it is, with want it wants to be democratic and exclusively Jewish."
Senator,
Even open-minded Israelis are not pleased with the Israeli Law of Return. One of them was Ha'aretz's editor, Gershom Schocken, who wrote (1985) about favoring Jewish-Arab intermarriage as an effective measure for promulgating a new Israeli people distinct from the Jewish people. He believed such a step was important to establish the Israeli person, far from being simply a Jew or non-Jew. Then in November 1994, Schocken's successor, Hanoch Marmari went a step further. Marmari wrote an editorial calling for the repeal of the Law of Return since Jews in the Diaspora were no longer in danger of being persecuted. He believed the Law of Return did not serve any purpose except it encouraged the ill and old of the Jewish world to be disposed of in Israel and transforming the state into "the old-age home of the Jewish people." He called upon the Israeli government to end the Law of Return by the year 2023 and to adopt a pragmatic or selective immigration policy "as is accepted in enlightened countries." Marmari was not the only Israeli who had called to end the Law of return.
As early as 1984, the professor of philosophy at Tel Aviv University, Asa Kasher, had remarked that the state should allow Jewish immigrants only if they were exposed to actual danger or were culturally or politically desirable. Even the well-known Israeli author David Grossman had supported the revision of the Law of Return because he deemed it essential for "full equality" for the Israeli Arabs.
I leave it to your conscience to determine whether the Law of Return is a healthy State policy that advances the democratic values of Israel.
Senator,
The second state law that discriminates against non-Jews pertains to land ownership. The Israeli Supreme Court affirmed (1972) the absence of "Israeli" nationality while reviewing a landmark case. The significance of differentiating between nationality and citizenship can be illustrated when reviewing the third fundamental law [i.e. the World Zionist Organization/ Jewish Agency (Status) Law of 1952 (WZO/JA Law)]. During the British mandate, these 2 organizations along with the Jewish National Fund (JNF) were performing the activities carried out by any state. The British tolerated the 3 Jewish organizations to function as a state within a state because it facilitated the implementation of the Balfour Declaration in establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The powers and resources of these 3 Jewish institutions are enormous. The Jewish Agency (JA) operating through the JNF control 92 percent of the land in Israel. Most of that land was taken from Palestinian Arabs mainly through expropriations. The government after taking over the Arab land transfers them to the JA in a process called "redeeming the land." This government act deprives non-Jews of the use of the land according to the JNF Charter that limits the cultivation of the land only to "the Jewish people." All non-Jews, including Christian and Muslim Palestinians, are unable to own the land and cannot either rent it or work on it. Thus Israeli democracy, under the third fundamental law, divides its citizens into different segments that give preferential treatment for one segment of its population, the Jews. This is why it would not be an exaggeration to stress that Israeli democracy is indeed a democracy for the Jews only.
The exclusion of Arabs from acquiring state lands runs contrary to democratic principles that ensure equality for all its citizens as well as the inalienable rights to freedom, justice and opportunity. All these basic ingredients found in any Western democratic society are not a part of Israeli political culture. Some observers remarked "The lack of democracy stems from the colonialist problem and the presence of natives, who are a population apart, an enemy within."
Geoffrey Wheatcroft stated, "Admiring the Israeli achievements as they do, Western and especially American Jews have not asked themselves whether they would care to live in a country where only Christians could own much of the country’s land. Within living memory there were large restrictive clauses against sale to ‘Hebrew’, only gentiles could buy; today, there are vast acreages in Israel which only Jews can. "
It is worth mentioning that in July 2000, Ma’ariv printed an article titled the "Great Tree Fraud," which exposed the fraud committed by the JNF staff. The newspaper printed three pictures taken from the same vantagepoint on two consecutive dates at the end of the previous month. The first picture depicted a tourist engaged in planting his tree, the second picture in the same site depicted a nude but pockmarked, most likely was made ready for the following day’s tree planting by another unsuspected tourist. The third photograph displayed a pile of uprooted seedlings located near the pockmarked area. JNF charged each tourist $10 for planting a pine seedling, which had become a ritual for every Jewish tourist that visited Israel. Tourists planted about 80,000 seedlings annually. The exposé‚ obliged JNF to suspend a number of its workers and appointed a former judge to head an investigation committee.
A British Israeli writer provided more information on the JNF tree-planting scheme. Susan Nathan wrote, "According to its own figures, the Jewish National Fund (JFN) has planted more than 240 million trees, mainly fast growing pines, across the country. They had been paid for by Jews from around the world, who have been encouraged to ‘buy a tree’ for Israel….. The true purpose of these mass planting programmes, however, is rarely discussed. In the early years of the state, the government claimed that the trees were needed to ensure supplies of wood for fuel and construction. But in fact much of the greenery paid for by the Jewish Diaspora has been planted either directly over the ruins of the Arab villages destroyed in 1948 or on land that Arab communities were once able to farm. It has been used as another weapon in their continuing dispossession….. By 1953 the organisation had given nearly 500,000 acres of confiscated land, and that figure continues to grow. Today the JNF owns 13 percent of the land in Israel, in the main habitable regions, on which more than two thirds of Israeli Jews have a home; none of it, according to organisation’s owns charter, can be leased or rented to Arab citizens.
[This is a blatant form of Land Apartheid ]…. Now after more than five decades of aggressive land confiscation policies towards Palestinian citizens, 93 percent of Israeli land is owned either by the state or the Jewish National Fund….. The rest of Israeli territory, 7 percent, is split between private Jewish and Arab owners. Even so, much of the 3 percent of the land held by the country’s Arab population has been put under the jurisdiction of Jewish regional councils, which refuse to give Arab citizens permits to develop."
Hence, most land in Israel is owned by the JNF, which rents it on long-term leases, it will not rent land to Arabs. Much Arab land within Israel proper has been confiscated by the state.
I leave it to your conscience to determine whether the land ownership policy in Israel is one of its democratic attributes.
God Bless America and its people.
Contributed to this site by the author.
You may have noticed that this piece needs to be copyedited. I have a number of contributors who read and write English as a second language, but I simply don't have the time to copyedit everything they send me for publication. If you are able and willing to help out, please let me know. The world will be in your debt. - the Editor